Administrator Views on Providing Self-Determination Instruction in Elementary and Secondary Schools

Abstract

We report findings from a statewide study of 333 administrators focused on (a) the extent to which they prioritize each of seven self-determination skills, (b) whether and where staff at their schools are providing instruction on these seven skills, and (c) potential avenues for equipping educators to learn strategies for fostering self-determination. Administrators attributed considerable importance to providing instruction on all seven skills: choice making, decision making, goal setting and attainment, problem solving, self-advocacy and leadership skills, self-awareness and self-knowledge, and self-management and self-regulation. Although administrators reported educators at their school taught these skills with only moderate frequency, the range of classrooms and settings in which each skill was addressed was considerable. Overall, few differences in ratings of importance or frequency of instruction were found based on student disability status or school level.

Keywords

self-determination school leadership principals students with disabilities

It has long been recognized that a well-rounded education should incorporate more than a narrow emphasis on academic learning. In addition to providing rigorous instruction on academic content, educators are also called on to equip students with a constellation of skills, knowledge, and attitudes that have relevance to students’ success in school and after graduation (Council for Exceptional Children, 2009; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2008). One set of skills that has garnered growing attention within the professional literature falls under the broad construct of self-determination. Although defined in diverse ways, self-determination refers broadly to having the capacities and opportunities to more actively direct one’s own learning and other life activities in ways leading to personally satisfying outcomes (Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1998). Providing instruction aimed at building students’ capacity related to choice making, decision making, goal setting and attainment, problem solving, self-advocacy and leadership skills, self-awareness and self-knowledge, and self-management and self-regulation can foster greater self-determination as students move through schooling (Wehmeyer & Field, 2007).

Over the last two decades, empirical support for the efficacy of teaching skills associated with enhanced self-determination has accumulated rapidly. For example, systematic literature reviews addressing choice making (Shogren, Faggella-Luby, Bae, & Wehmeyer, 2004), self-management strategies (Ennis & Jolivette, 2012), and self-advocacy and leadership (Test, Fowler, Brewer, & Wood, 2005) have confirmed self-determination skills can be readily taught and lead to improvements in myriad outcomes. Similarly, studies examining packaged self-determination interventions have also demonstrated the potential impact of targeting this instructional domain (e.g., Geenen et al., 2013; Wehmeyer, Palmer, Shogren, Williams-Diehm, & Soukup, 2013). Not surprisingly, promoting self-determination is now firmly entrenched as a recommended practice in the fields of special education and secondary transition.

Although there now exists a strong evidence base in the area of self-determination, the extent to which these findings penetrate everyday educational practices in schools remains less clear. Despite frequent calls to foster self-determination across the elementary and secondary grade span, there is little evidence of widespread efforts to teach students these skills within or across schools (Cho, Wehmeyer, & Kingston, 2011; Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 2000). One factor that may impact whether and how self-determination is addressed within the school curriculum is the extent to which key stakeholders prioritize this as an important educational domain. Recent descriptive studies suggest special educators and paraprofessionals—working with students with varied disabilities across school levels—consider teaching components of self-determination skills to have fairly high instructional priority (e.g., Carter, Lane, Pierson, & Stang, 2008; Carter, Lane, & Sisco, 2011; Cho et al., 2011; Lane, Carter, & Sisco, 2012; Zhang, Wehmeyer, & Chen, 2005). Similarly, parents of students with disabilities highly affirm the importance of addressing these skills as part of the school curriculum (Carter et al., 2013; Shogren, 2011; Zhang et al., 2005). While general educators also endorse the importance of teaching self-determination skills, they prioritize this domain somewhat less than special educators (Carter et al., 2008; Stang, Carter, Lane, & Pierson, 2009). However, little attention has focused on administrators’ views of the importance of teaching self-determination.

School administrators play an especially prominent role in setting curricular priorities at their school and casting a vision for what educational domains should be given precedence (Shellard, 2003; Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, & Ahlgrim-Delzell, 2006). Moreover, principals may be intimately involved in decisions about the focus of professional development activities, indicators of educator effectiveness, and the provision of supports to their staff. Thus, their perspectives on the importance of self-determination as an educational priority hold strong potential to shape instructional practices throughout their school. Only one study has explored how these school leaders view self-determination within the K-12 curriculum. Mason, Field, and Sawilowsky (2004) conducted a brief online survey of the self-determination instructional practices and attitudes of a convenience sample of 523 practitioners, 8% of whom identified themselves as administrators. Half of responding administrators indicated their district provided informal instruction for self-determination, most said there was a district plan for teaching self-determination, and many indicated the district was prepared to teach self-determination skills. A more in-depth and representative picture of how administrators prioritize and address instruction in core self-determination skills within their school could provide important insights factors that either narrow or exacerbate the research-to-practice gap related to self-determination instruction. In addition, the views of administrators could provide a broader school-wide perspective on fostering self-determination than has been available in prior studies focusing narrowly on the efforts of individual teachers and paraprofessionals.

The purpose of our statewide study was to examine administrators’ views on addressing self-determination in K-12 schools. We were particularly interested in understanding principals’ perspectives related to three aspects of this issue. First, differences in the degree to which general and special educators prioritize self-determination instruction suggest staff priorities might differ on the basis of whether the students who would receive such instruction are identified as having disabilities. Prior research indicates students with disabilities experience heightened challenges with performing skills associated with self-determination that might augment their need for additional instruction (Carter, Trainor, Owens, Swedeen, & Sun, 2010; SRI International, 2005). Thus, we sought to determine whether administrators’ views about the importance of teaching self-determination was uniform for their entire student body or whether it differed for students who disabilities.

Second, researchers have suggested self-determination instruction should be infused throughout the general education curriculum (Palmer, Wehmeyer, Gipson, & Agran, 2004; Shogren, 2011). However, little empirical attention has focused on exactly where within the school day instruction on self-determination skills is actually provided. In their study of general and special educators at the high school level, Carter et al. (2008) found that self-determination instruction was reportedly delivered within a range of curricular areas, including core academic and elective courses. Given that most conversations about fostering self-determination have taken place within the adolescent transition literature (Cobb, Lehmann, Newman-Gonchar, & Alwell, 2009), it may be that large differences in instructional opportunities exist across curricular areas and across school levels (i.e., elementary vs. secondary). Administrators have a unique vantage point to speak to how self-determination is addressed across the curriculum.

Third, the capacity to deliver high-quality self-determination instruction is predicated on educators receiving relevant resources and adequate training. However, prior surveys of teachers and paraprofessionals indicate access to professional development related to self-determination is limited (Carter et al., 2011; Thoma, Pannozzo, Fritton, & Bartholomew, 2008; Wehmeyer et al., 2000). Given the role administrators play in determining whether and how professional development is directed toward particular instructional areas, we were interested in knowing which avenues for delivering training on self-determination administrators anticipated their staff would be most likely to draw on.

We sought to answer the following research questions in this statewide study: How do administrators evaluate the importance of their staff providing instruction related to each of seven component skills associated with self-determination among students? To what extent do administrators report their staff actually delivers instruction on each skill? Do administrators share similar or divergent views on promoting self-determination across school levels (i.e., elementary vs. secondary) and student groups (i.e., students in general vs. students with disabilities specifically)? Where within the curriculum are self-determination skills being taught? According to administrators, how likely are school staff to draw on various potential avenues for professional development and learning about self-determination?

Method

Participants and Schools

Participants included 333 school-site-level administrators representing randomly selected elementary, middle, and high schools in Tennessee. Most respondents (92.6%) identified themselves as principals, 4.9% were assistant principals, 1.5% were department chairs, and 1.5% held other roles. Participants were employed in administrative roles at their respective schools at an average of 5.7 years (SD = 5.4), had an average of 10.2 years (SD = 6.8) of total administrative experience anywhere, and had an average of 24.0 years (SD = 9.4) of total educational experience anywhere. The schools led by these administrators served students in the elementary (58.0%), middle/junior high (33.0%), and/or high school (22.8%) grades; some schools served multiple levels. Average student enrollment was 572.6 (SD = 334.2). Student ethnicity across schools was 71.1% Caucasian (SD = 31.6%), 21.6% African American (SD = 29.8%), 5.8% Hispanic (SD = 8.4%), 1.3% Asian American (SD = 2.0%), and 0.2% Native American (SD = 0.3%). The percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price meals averaged 62.9% (SD = 21.7%). These schools were located in 124 of the states’ 141 districts and they closely mirrored the demographics of all schools in the state. Specifically, student enrollment statewide averaged 542.6 (SD = 338.2) and the average percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price meals statewide was 63.2% (SD = 22.0%). Student ethnicity across all schools in the state was 71.0% Caucasian (SD = 31.2%), 21.0% African American (SD = 28.6%), 6.4% Hispanic (SD = 8.9%), 1.5% Asian American (SD = 2.3%), and 0.2% Native American (SD = 0.6%).

As described in the subsequent section, administrators were randomly selected to receive a survey referencing either “students” (n = 170 returned) or “students with disabilities” (n = 163 returned). Specifically, our interest was in determining whether and how self-determination might be prioritized or addressed differently for students with disabilities than for students in general. Table 1 displays overall administrator and school demographics for both groups of administrators. There were no significant differences in demographics between groups.

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics by Survey Referent.

	Survey referent
Demographic variables	Students	Students with disabilities	All administrators
Professional role: % (n)
Principal	94.6 (159)	89.5 (145)	92.1 (304)
Assistant principal	3.0 (5)	6.8 (11)	4.9 (16)
Department chair	0.6 (1)	2.5 (4)	1.5 (5)
Other role	1.9 (3)	1.2 (2)	1.5 (5)
Experience: M (SD)
Years employed in this role at current school	5.4 (5.4)	6.0 (5.5)	5.7 (5.4)
Years as an administrator anywhere	10.0 (6.6)	10.4 (7.0)	10.2 (6.8)
Years in the field of education anywhere	23.9 (9.4)	24.11 (9.3)	24.0 (9.4)
School demographics: M (SD)
Number of teachers	42.1 (20.6)	44.1 (25.3)	43.1 (23.0)
Student enrollment	595.1 (327.1)	617.6 (369.8)	606.0 (348.2)
School levels: % (n)^a
Elementary school	56.5 (96)	59.5 (97)	58.0 (193)
Middle school or junior high school	29.4 (50)	36.8 (60)	33.0 (110)
High school	22.9 (39)	22.7 (37)	22.8 (76)
Other school setting	5.3 (9)	1.2 (2)	3.3 (11)
Community size: % (n)
Less than 2,500	24.7 (41)	14.9 (24)	19.9 (65)
2,500–9,999	24.7 (41)	32.3 (52)	28.4 (93)
10,000–24,999	25.9 (43)	21.1 (34)	23.6 (77)
25,000–99,999	16.3 (27)	19.9 (32)	18.0 (59)
100,000 or more	8.4 (14)	11.8 (19)	10.1 (33)

More than one option could be selected.

Procedures

We randomly selected 889 public schools from which to invite administrators into this study. Using the Department of Education’s database of all public schools in the state, we used the random number generation function within Excel to select 50% of schools. Using the same function, we then randomly assigned half of the schools to receive a survey referencing either students with disabilities or students in general (see the section titled “Instrument” for rationale). Permission to carry out the study was obtained from the state Department of Education as well as from individual districts with external research committees; one district representing nine schools declined participation. Thus, the survey referencing students with disabilities was sent to 440 administrators and the survey referencing students in general was sent to 440 administrators.

Data collection took place during a 2-month period toward the end of the academic year to enable administrators to reflect on the entire school year when responding. During a 3-week window beginning in mid-April, we mailed print copies of the instrument to the head principal at each of the schools. Each survey was accompanied by a cover letter explaining the purpose of the research, instructions for completing and returning the survey, and a statement affirming participation was voluntary and all data would be kept confidential. The survey packet also included a letter of support from the state Department of Education and, if applicable, a statement that the study was approved by the local district’s external research committee. During the same time window, we sent to all principals an e-mail invitation containing the cover letter and instructions to complete either the print or electronic version of the survey, but not both. The e-mail contained a link to a secure, online survey application (i.e., REDCap; Harris et al., 2009). We sought alternate contact information when e-mails were returned or when potential respondents indicated they had changed roles. About 3 weeks later, we sent a second print survey and electronic invitation to all administrators who had not yet returned a survey. Finally, at the end of the year, we sent an e-mail invitation to all who had not responded. During each wave of invitations, administrators could reply indicating they were not interested in participating. The study closed 2 weeks after the end of the school year for most schools.

We used several approaches to yield a high response rate. First, the cover letter indicated the first 50 administrators returning a completed survey would receive a $25 gift card to an online bookstore. In addition, all participants returning a survey would be entered into a drawing for one of 25 additional $25 gift cards. Second, surveys could be completed by any administrator at the school who was familiar with the topic. Third, we limited the length of the survey to enable completion in 20 min. Fourth, we offered print and on-line venues for survey completion as well as extended follow-up invitations during the 2-month study window. Fifth, we noted in our cover letter that we would distribute a free guide on fostering self-determination for school staff based on what we learned. The overall response rate was 37.8% (38.6% for surveys referencing students in general; 37.0% for surveys referencing students with disabilities). No significant differences were found in demographics of schools in which an administrator did or did not respond. Data entry for each print survey was checked and any errors corrected.

Instrument

We drew on several existing measures to gauge the extent to which self-determination was addressed and prioritized within elementary and secondary schools from the vantage point of administrators. The final survey included six sections (see headings below). We developed two versions of the instrument that were identical in all ways except for how they referenced students. Specifically, one version referenced “students” generally (i.e., no mention was made of disability or special education on the survey) and the other referenced “students with disabilities” specifically throughout the survey. Our goal was to discern whether and how self-determination might be addressed or prioritized similarly or differently for students with disabilities. Although we initially considered referencing students with and without disabilities on the same survey, we were reluctant to double the length of the survey and anticipated administrators might be inclined to provide identical responses for each group of students if both were listed together. Consistent with other studies seeking to identify viewpoint differences based on disability (e.g., Carter et al., 2009; Dalgin & Bellini, 2008), we instead opted to randomly assign the referent.

Demographics

We asked respondents to provide information about their professional role at the school, years employed at the current school, total years of administrative experience anywhere, and total years in the field of education anywhere. We also requested information about the total number of teachers at their school, total number of students, size of the community served by the school, the grade levels characterizing the school, and the settings in which students with disabilities were served (see Table 1).

Self-determination component skills

We asked administrators to rate the importance of seven component skills—choice making, decision making, goal setting, problem solving, self-advocacy and leadership skills, self-awareness and self-knowledge, and self-management and self-regulation skills—associated with self-determination. These items were drawn from a national survey of special educators (Wehmeyer et al., 2000) and the same items have been socially validated in studies of teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents (Carter et al., 2008; Carter et al., 2013; Lane et al., 2012). Brief examples accompanied each of the seven skills (e.g., teaching students to set and track goals, participate in goal-setting activities, and develop plans to achieve goals was listed underneath goal setting and attainment). For each item, we asked respondents: “How important do you think teaching this skill is compared with other instructional priorities for your students [with disabilities]?” Ratings were made on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = low importance to 6 = high importance). Next, for these same seven skills, we asked “How often do your staff teach this skill to students [with disabilities]?” Ratings were made on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = never to 6 = often). Cronbach’s alpha for each set of ratings was .92 and .93.

Curricular areas

We asked administrators to indicate whether each of the seven self-determination skills from the previous section were typically taught to students [with disabilities] in the following curricular areas and activities: science classes, math classes, language arts classes, social studies classes, physical education classes, related arts classes, elective classes, vocational classes and programs, special education classes, and extracurricular activities. Items were drawn from a prior study of secondary educators (Carter et al., 2008). We provided space for administrators to write in other activities and they could also note whether a particular class was not offered at their school (e.g., vocational classes at an elementary school).

Opportunities for self-determination

We asked administrators to rate self-determination opportunities for students [with disabilities] at their school using the six items from the school opportunity section of the AIR Self-Determination Scale (Wolman, Campeau, DuBois, Mithaug, & Stolarski, 1994). Items are displayed in Table 4. Whereas the AIR scale is used to rate opportunities for a single student (“Student has opportunities to . . . ”), we asked administrators to consider all students [with disabilities] (“At our school, students [with disabilities] have opportunities to . . . ”). Ratings were made using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = never to 5 = always). This widely used measure of self-determination opportunities has strong reliability and validity. Cronbach’s alpha for this section was .82.

Professional development avenues

We provided administrators a list of 20 potential professional development avenues and asked them to rate how likely they thought their school staff would be to draw on each source of resources, information, and/or training for learning about fostering self-determination for students [with disabilities] assuming each was actually available. Table 5 displays all 20 avenues, which were drawn from our review of the professional development literature (e.g., Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). Respondents could suggest additional professional development avenues if needed. Cronbach’s alpha for this section was .89.

Skills and behaviors important for success

We asked respondents to rate each of 20 student skills or behaviors in terms of (a) how important each is to the overall success of students [with disabilities] at the school, and (b) how frequently teachers teach each to students [with disabilities]. These items were identified as skills or behaviors that might be addressed as part of schoolwide screening efforts. For each of the items, respondents used a 5-point Likert-type scale to rate the importance of each skill/behavior (1 = not all important to 5 = very important). In addition, they used a 5-point Likert-type scale to rate the frequency with which teachers explicitly teach the skills (1 = never to 5 = often). These findings are not reported in this article.

To protect confidentiality, we did not request personal demographic information directly from respondents. Rather, we assigned unique codes to each survey, which we subsequently used to send follow-up reminders and link response data to personal, school, and community demographic variables obtained from state databases. All personally identifying information was removed once the databases were linked and double checked.

Data Analysis

We used descriptive statistics to summarize all ratings provided by administrators. We examined differences in mean scores for importance and frequency of instruction items based on the school levels (elementary vs. secondary) and the students considered (student body in general vs. students with disabilities specifically). We conducted one-way repeated measures ANOVAs to examine differences in ratings of importance and frequency of instruction among the seven self-determination component skills. We also conducted a series of 2 × 2 analyses of variances (ANOVAs) for the importance and frequency of instruction of each items. We interpreted interactions first followed by inspection of main effects when interactions were not statistically significant. Tukey multiple comparison (α = .05) were used to examine differences in importance ratings across the items. We used this same approach to examine differences in mean scores for opportunities to be engaged based on the school levels (elementary vs. secondary) and the students considered (student body in general vs. students with disabilities specifically). We computed Pearson correlation coefficients to examine the relation between administrators’ ratings of the importance and frequency of instruction for each of the seven self-determination domains. As post hoc analyses, we also computed correlation coefficients to examine the association among administrators’ ratings of self-determination skill importance and years of experience at their current school, school size, and percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price meals attending the school.

Results

Importance of Providing Instruction on Self-Determination Skills

Overall, administrators attributed high (i.e., ratings of 5 or 6) levels of importance to each of the seven component elements of self-determination (see Table 2), with mean scores ranging from 4.76 (SD = 1.00) for self-advocacy and leadership skills to 5.31 (SD = 0.84) for problem-solving skills. More than 70% of administrators rated decision-making, problem-solving, and self-management and self-regulation skills as having high importance relative to other instructional priorities for their students. Although the lowest ratings were assigned to self-advocacy and leadership and self-awareness and self-knowledge, more than 60% of administrated rated the other domains as highly important as well.

Table 2.

Ratings of Skill Importance and Reported Instruction by Student Type Considered.

Component skill/survey referent	Importance (% responding)			M (SD)	Instruction (% responding)			M (SD)
Component skill/survey referent	Low (1 or 2)	Medium (3 or 4)	High (5 or 6)	M (SD)	Never (1 or 2)	Sometimes (3 or 4)	Often (5 or 6)	M (SD)
Choice making	0.9	34.0	65.1	4.87 (0.94)	6.4	64.1	29.5	4.03 (1.07)
Students	1.2	34.7	64.1	4.85 (0.96)	7.1	69.1	23.8	3.90 (0.99)
Students with disabilities	0.6	33.3	66.0	4.89 (0.92)	5.7	58.9	35.5	4.16 (1.14)
Decision making	1.5	22.2	76.3	5.07 (0.98)	6.1	51.2	42.6	4.22 (1.10)
Students	0.6	22.9	76.5	5.10 (0.89)	5.4	53.6	41.1	4.17 (1.06)
Students with disabilities	2.5	21.4	76.1	5.04 (1.06)	7.0	48.7	44.3	4.27 (1.15)
Problem solving	0.0	15.2	84.9	5.31 (0.84)	2.4	45.7	51.8	4.55 (1.02)
Students	0.0	10.0	90.0	5.42 (0.72)	2.4	45.6	52.1	4.53 (0.98)
Students with disabilities	0.0	20.6	79.4	5.20 (0.94)	2.5	45.9	51.6	4.58 (1.07)
Goal setting and attainment	1.2	31.2	67.6	4.92 (0.96)	7.6	60.1	32.3	4.02 (1.12)
Students	0.6	28.2	71.2	5.04 (0.93)	8.9	59.2	32.0	4.00 (1.11)
Students with disabilities	1.9	34.4	63.8	4.81 (0.98)	6.3	61.0	32.7	4.04 (1.14)
Self-advocacy and leadership skills	1.5	37.2	61.3	4.76 (1.00)	12.8	61.8	25.4	3.81 (1.13)
Students	0.6	35.9	63.5	4.81 (0.92)	15.4	65.7	18.9	3.64 (1.10)
Students with disabilities	2.5	38.6	58.9	4.70 (1.09)	10.1	57.6	32.3	3.98 (1.14)
Self-management and self-regulation skills	2.1	25.0	72.9	5.03 (1.04)	8.9	53.8	37.3	4.15 (1.21)
Students	3.0	26.2	70.8	5.00 (1.11)	10.1	58.9	31.0	4.02 (1.17)
Students with disabilities	1.3	23.8	75.0	5.06 (0.98)	7.6	48.4	44.0	4.29 (1.23)
Self-awareness and self-knowledge	2.1	35.2	62.7	4.78 (1.05)	11.6	56.1	32.3	3.92 (1.19)
Students	2.4	37.1	60.6	4.79 (1.05)	13.6	62.1	24.3	3.75 (1.13)
Students with disabilities	1.9	33.1	65.0	4.77 (1.05)	9.4	49.7	40.9	4.11 (1.23)

Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the given item. Bolded numbers represent all surveys.

A one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in ratings of importance among the seven domains, F(6, 2297) = 13.03, p < .001, R² = .033. Follow-up contrasts using Tukey comparison techniques indicated (a) problem solving (Grouping A) was rated significantly higher than all other skills; (b) decision making, self-management and self-regulation, goal setting and attainment, and choice making were statistically similar (Grouping B); and (c) goal setting and attainment, choice making, self-awareness and self-knowledge, and self-advocacy and leadership (Grouping C) were statistically similar and received the lowest importance scores.

Using correlational analyses, we found no significant associations between administrators’ experience (r range = −.07 to .10) or school size (r range = −.09 to .02) and importance ratings for any of the seven self-determination skills. However, the percentage of students at a school who were economically disadvantaged (i.e., was eligible for free or reduced-price meals) was significantly and positively correlated with the importance attributed to choice making (r = .15, p = .009), goal setting and attainment (r = .16, p = .004), self-advocacy and leadership (r = .13, p = .016), self-management and self-regulation (r = .12, p = .027), and self-awareness and self-knowledge (r = .13, p = .023). No significant correlations were found for decision making or problem solving.

Extent of Instruction on Self-Determination Skills

Administrators reported a somewhat wider range of ratings related to the frequency with which staff provided instruction on self-determination, with mean scores ranging from 3.81 (SD = 1.13) for self-advocacy and leadership skills to 4.55 (SD = 1.02) for problem-solving skills. Problem-solving was the only domain rated by more than 50% of administrators as being taught often (i.e., ratings of 5 or 6) by their teachers.

A one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in ratings of frequency of instruction among the seven domains, F(6, 2283) = 15.24, p < .001, R² = .039. Follow-up contrasts using Tukey comparison techniques indicated (a) problem solving (Grouping A) was rated significantly higher than all other domains; (b) decision making, self-management and self-regulation, choice making, and goal setting and attainment were statistically similar (Grouping B); (c) self-management and self-regulation, choice making, goal setting and attainment, and self-awareness and self-knowledge were statistically similar (Grouping C); and (d) choice making, goal setting and attainment, self-awareness and self-knowledge, and self-advocacy and leadership (Grouping D) were statistically similar, with the lowest importance scores.

Alignment of Perspectives across Student Groups and School Levels

Four of the 14 models were statistically significant: importance of decision making, F(3, 310) = 3.51, p = .016; importance of problem solving, F(3, 311) = 2.77, p = .042; instructional time devoted to self-awareness and self-knowledge skills, F(3, 309) = 2.83, p = .039; and instructional time devoted to self-advocacy and leadership skills, F(3, 308) = 2.59, p = .053. Interaction terms were not statistically significant in any model. However, we found one main effect for school level. Specifically, there was a main effect for the importance placed on decision-making, F(1, 310) = 9.48, p = .002, with administrators placing higher importance on decision-making skills at the secondary (M = 5.28, SD = 0.82) compared with the elementary (M = 4.95, SD = 1.03) level. We found three main effects for the type of student considered (see Table 2 for group means). There was a main effect of type of student considered for the importance placed on problem-solving, F(1, 311) = 6.51, p = .011; with administrators placing higher importance on problem skills for the student body as a whole rather than for students with disabilities. There was a main effect for type of student considered in self-advocacy and leadership skills, F(1, 308) = 6.46, p = .012, as well as self-awareness and self-knowledge skills, F(1, 309) = 7.45, p = .007. Administrators indicated teachers spent more instructional time teaching self-advocacy and leadership skills for students with disabilities compared with the student body as whole, and the same was true for time devoted to teaching self-awareness and self-knowledge skills.

Relation Between Ratings of Importance and Actual Instruction

Significant positive correlations were found for all seven items: choice-making (r = .54, p < .001); decision-making (r = .52, p < .0001); problem-solving (r = .39, p < .0001); goal setting and attainment (r = .44, p < .0001); self-advocacy and leadership skills (r = .37, p < .0001); self-management and self-regulation skills (r = .58, p < .0001); and self-awareness and self-knowledge (r = .50, p < .0001). Overall, correlation coefficients indicate medium relations between ratings of importance and frequency of instruction from administrators’ perspectives.

Curriculum Considerations

As shown in Table 3, more than 90% of administrators indicated problem-solving skills were taught in science (91.0%) and math (94.3%) classes. At least 75% of administrators also indicated choice-making and decision-making skills were addressed in Language Arts classes. More than half of administrators indicated all aspects of self-determined behavior were taught in special education classes. Far less emphasis was placed on self-advocacy and leadership skills, with less than 30% of administrators indicating these skills were taught in science (23.72%), math (27.03%), elective (21.92%), or vocational classes (19.82%). However, it is important to note that not all classes were offered in each school. This was particularly true for vocational and elective classes within elementary schools.

Table 3.

Percentage of Administrators Indicating Self-Determination Skill Instruction is Addressed Across Activities by School Level.

School contexts	Choice making	Decision making	Problem solving	Goal-setting and attainment	Self-advocacy and leadership	Self-management and self-regulation	Self-awareness and self-knowledge	Not offered
Science classes	64.0	67.6	91.0	42.9	23.7	55.9	37.8	2.7
Elementary school	59.2	64.7	89.7	38.6	17.9	52.7	35.3	2.7
Secondary school	69.9	70.7	92.5	50.4	32.3	60.9	42.1	3.0
Math classes	66.1	73.0	94.3	57.7	27.0	59.5	37.2	0.9
Elementary school	64.7	72.8	95.1	58.7	23.9	58.7	33.7	0.0
Secondary school	69.2	72.2	94.0	59.4	32.3	62.4	42.9	2.3
Language arts classes	75.7	76.0	72.4	62.8	40.2	58.9	48.4	1.2
Elementary school	73.9	73.9	69.0	63.6	34.8	59.8	46.7	0.0
Secondary school	80.5	79.7	78.2	65.4	49.6	57.9	51.9	2.3
Social studies classes	73.0	74.2	72.4	50.8	45.1	55.3	47.2	2.1
Elementary school	73.4	74.5	70.7	47.8	40.8	54.8	43.5	0.5
Secondary school	74.4	74.4	75.9	57.1	51.9	58.7	54.1	3.0
Physical education	74.2	68.8	57.7	71.2	52.9	72.4	63.1	2.7
Elementary school	72.3	67.4	59.2	71.2	51.6	72.8	61.4	1.1
Secondary school	76.7	72.2	57.1	73.7	55.6	71.4	66.2	3.8
Related arts classes	73.9	66.7	58.6	55.3	41.4	61.6	56.5	9.9
Elementary school	77.2	67.9	58.7	54.4	44.6	65.2	56.0	7.1
Secondary school	71.4	66.2	59.4	57.9	39.9	58.7	58.7	12.8
Elective classes	30.9	28.5	29.1	26.4	21.9	24.3	24.0	58.9
Elementary school	7.6	8.7	8.2	8.2	5.4	6.5	7.6	84.2
Secondary school	61.7	54.9	57.1	50.4	45.1	49.6	45.9	25.6
Vocational classes	24.3	27.3	26.7	26.1	19.8	22.5	21.3	64.9
Elementary school	6.5	6.5	6.0	6.0	4.4	4.4	4.9	86.4
Secondary school	46.6	54.1	54.1	52.6	40.6	45.9	42.1	36.8
Special education classes	73.6	79.3	80.5	74.5	57.7	72.7	64.3	5.1
Elementary school	73.9	81.5	82.6	75.5	56.0	72.8	62.5	2.7
Secondary school	75.2	79.0	79.0	76.7	62.4	73.7	67.7	7.5
Extracurricular activities	58.3	51.1	45.7	51.7	50.5	53.2	47.5	19.8
Elementary school	44.0	36.4	29.9	34.8	34.2	39.1	30.4	31.0
Secondary school	77.4	70.7	66.2	73.7	71.4	70.7	70.7	6.0

Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the given item. Bolded numbers represent all surveys.

Opportunities to Engage in Self-Determined Behaviors

More than 50% of principals indicated students almost always or always had opportunity to engage in all noted areas, with the exception of how to learn to make choices and plans. Only one administrator indicated students never had an opportunity to be engaged in (a) making choices and plans and (b) changing actions and plans.

Two of the six models we tested were statistically significant: explore, express, and feel good about own needs, interests, and abilities, F(3, 309) = 6.13, p = .001, and learn about making choices and plans, to make them, and to feel good about them, F(3, 308) = 7.11, p < .001. Interaction terms were not statistically significant in any model. However, we found a main effect for the type of student considered, but not for school level. Specifically, there was a main effect of type of student considered for the opportunity to explore, F(1, 309) = 16.22, p < .001; with administrators indicating students with disabilities had more opportunities to explore than did the student body as a whole, with a similar pattern for making choices, F(1, 308) = 19.79, p < .001 (see Table 4 for mean scores).

Table 4.

Overall Opportunities for Students to Engage in Self-Determined Behavior by Student Type Considered.

At our schools, students have opportunities to	Percentage of administrators providing each rating					M (SD)
At our schools, students have opportunities to	Never (1)	Almost never (2)	Some-times (3)	Almost always (4)	Always (5)	M (SD)
. . . explore, express, and feel good about own needs, interests, and abilities	0.0	0.6	30.8	47.3	21.3	3.89 (0.73)
Students	0.0	1.2	38.7	45.8	14.3	3.73 (0.71)
Students with disabilities	0.0	0.0	22.5	48.8	28.8	4.06 (0.72)
. . . identify goals and expectations that will meet his or her needs, interests, and abilities; to set these goals; and to feel good about them	0.0	2.7	44.4	35.9	17.0	3.67 (0.79)
Students	0.0	4.1	46.8	35.5	13.6	3.59 (0.78)
Students with disabilities	0.0	1.3	41.9	36.3	20.6	3.76 (0.79)
. . . learn about making choices and plans, to make them, and to feel good about them	0.3	10.1	42.8	33.3	13.5	3.50 (0.86)
Students	0.6	14.3	49.4	26.8	8.9	3.29 (0.84)
Students with disabilities	0.0	5.7	35.9	40.3	18.2	3.71 (0.83)
. . . to initiate actions to meet expectations and goals	0.0	5.8	28.6	47.1	18.5	3.78 (0.81)
Students	0.0	5.3	26.0	50.3	18.3	3.82 (0.79)
Students with disabilities	0.0	6.3	31.3	43.8	18.8	3.75 (0.83)
. . . get results of actions taken to meet own plans	0.0	2.7	23.4	49.2	24.6	3.96 (0.77)
Students	0.0	1.8	21.9	53.9	22.5	3.97 (0.72)
Students with disabilities	0.0	3.8	25.0	44.4	26.9	3.94 (0.82)
. . . change actions and plans to satisfy own expectations	0.3	4.6	40.2	36.9	18.0	3.68 (0.83)
Students	0.6	5.4	42.9	35.1	16.1	3.61 (0.84)
Students with disabilities	0.0	3.8	37.5	38.8	20.0	3.75 (0.82)

Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the given item. Bolded numbers represent all surveys.

Professional Development Venues

As shown in Table 5, the option for professional development and learning advocated as most likely to be accessed by teachers was in-district, during-school workshops (M = 4.00, SD = 1.07); followed by brief “good practice” guides (M = 3.79, SD = 0.95); teacher collaboratives/networks (M = 3.59, SD = 0.92); one-to-one coaching/mentoring (M = 3.53, SD = 0.97); teacher study groups or “learning” circles (M = 3.46, SD = 0.98); and in-district, after-school workshops (M = 3.41, SD = 1.11). The option for professional development and learning least likely to be accessed by teachers was in-district, weekend workshops (M = 2.19, SD = 1.13), followed by national conferences (out of state) (M = 2.50, SD = 1.26), courses for college credit (on-campus) (M = 2.70, SD = 1.15), and out-of-district workshops (M = 2.88, SD = 1.10).

Table 5.

Potential Professional Development Avenues for Equipping Staff to Foster Self-Determination.

Professional development avenues (assuming they are available)	Percentage of administrators providing each rating					M (SD)
	Very unlikely (1)	(2)	Somewhat likely (3)	(4)	Very likely (5)	M (SD)
In-district, during-school workshops	3.7	4.3	22.8	26.8	42.6	4.00 (1.07)
Brief “good practice” guides	1.5	6.7	29.2	36.8	25.8	3.79 (0.95)
Teacher collaboratives/networks	1.2	9.1	36.5	35.9	17.3	3.59 (0.92)
One-to-one coaching or mentoring	2.1	9.7	39.8	29.8	18.5	3.53 (0.97)
Teacher study groups/learning circles	2.7	12.8	35.3	34.7	14.6	3.46 (0.98)
In-district, after-school workshops	6.4	10.9	37.3	26.1	19.4	3.41 (1.11)
Articles from professional journals	4.0	15.6	39.0	28.7	12.8	3.31 (1.01)
Webinars	4.6	16.9	42.0	23.6	12.9	3.23 (1.03)
State conferences	5.2	13.5	45.6	24.5	11.3	3.23 (0.99)
Books and published curricula	5.8	16.5	42.7	24.4	10.7	3.18 (1.02)
Course for college credit (on-line)	8.6	17.5	38.7	21.8	13.5	3.14 (1.12)
Electronic research and practice briefs	4.6	20.4	42.1	23.5	9.5	3.13 (0.99)
Committee or task force involvement	4.6	21.7	43.0	22.6	8.2	3.08 (0.97)
Teacher-research workgroups	6.1	22.0	40.4	22.9	8.6	3.06 (1.02)
Transition-focused websites	7.7	18.8	47.4	18.5	7.7	3.00 (1.00)
Out-of-district workshops	13.8	17.1	44.7	15.9	8.6	2.88 (1.10)
Course for college credit (on-campus)	17.2	25.5	34.8	14.5	8.0	2.70 (1.15)
National conferences (out of state)	28.1	23.5	27.4	12.2	8.8	2.50 (1.26)
In-district, weekend workshops	36.3	24.4	27.7	7.6	4.0	2.19 (1.13)

Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the given item.

Discussion

Equipping students with the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that enable them to be self-determining is increasingly advocated by researchers and policy makers as an important element of the elementary and secondary school curriculum (Wehmeyer, 2011). For students with disabilities—many of whom struggle in this educational domain—such an instructional emphasis holds promise as one strand of efforts to improve their in- and postschool outcomes. Although prior social validity studies suggest general educators, special educators, paraprofessionals, and parents tend to view self-determination as having importance within the curriculum for students with disabilities, little is known about the extent to which administrators share these same curricular priorities. It is also instructive to consider whether these administrators hold similar perspectives when reflecting on the instructional needs of students with disabilities compared with the needs of all students served in their schools. Our study of 333 school administrators makes several contributions to the literature on fostering self-determination in schools.

First, we found that administrators placed fairly high importance on their staff teaching each of seven component skills associated with the self-determination construct. These findings are fairly consistent with those highlighted in prior studies involving other educational stakeholders. For example, the average ratings of administrators in the present study ranged from 4.76 to 5.31 on a 6-point Likert-type scale, compared with ranges of 4.34 to 5.17 for elementary and middle school teachers (Stang et al., 2009), 4.44 to 5.16 for high school educators (Carter et al., 2008), 4.79 to 5.35 for paraprofessionals supporting students with severe disabilities (Carter et al. 2011), and 4.98 to 5.45 for paraprofessionals supporting with students with high-incidence disabilities (Lane et al., 2012). Also consistent with each of these prior studies, providing instruction focused on problem-solving skills garnered the highest important ratings. Such findings suggest administrators may be generally supportive of efforts among educators to implement self-determination interventions within their classrooms.

Second, most administrators indicated that staff in their schools only sometimes taught these seven self-determination skills to students with and without disabilities. Overall, ratings of instructional frequency were somewhat lower than their ratings of skill importance. Similarly, administrators’ ratings on the AIR Self-Determination Scale reflected wide variability in the degree to which students have opportunities to engage in self-determined behaviors. What might account for the fairly modest ratings of instructional frequency and self-determination opportunities at these schools given the high importance administrators placed on their instruction? Although our instrument did not ask administrators to speak to the form instruction actually took in their schools, prior research suggests these skills might be addressed more incidentally (versus explicitly) within the school curriculum (Mason et al., 2004; Thoma, Nathanson, Baker, & Tamura, 2002). If true, administrators may not be aware of the full extent to which these component skills are being addressed. Conversely, it could be that the emphasis on covering academic content leaves less time available for educator to address at length these relevant skills. For example, educators might believe they are losing academic instructional time when teaching self-determined behaviors. Prior research suggests, however, that developing students’ self-determination skills (e.g., decision-making, problem-solving) could actually enhance academic learning opportunities (Carter, Lane, Crnobori, Bruhn, & Oakes, 2011; Konrad, Fowler, Walker, Test, & Wood, 2007).

Third, administrators reported that self-determination skills were being taught to students within a wide range of classes and settings. Although special education classrooms were frequently cited as locations within which most or all of the seven self-determination skills were taught, core content classes (i.e., science, math, language arts, social studies), elective and related arts classes, physical education, vocational classes, and extracurricular activities were all identified by a large proportion of administrators as contexts within which these skills were being targeted. Although we did not inquire about the specific ways in which each of these skills was being addressed by educators within each of these settings, such findings do suggest (a) self-determination instruction need not be thought of as falling exclusively under the purview of special educators and (b) fostering student self-determination should not be viewed as a competing priority with promoting access to the general curriculum. We encourage other inquiry to explore the methods by which self-determined skills are addressed in these settings, to gain the additional descriptive information necessary to inform intervention efforts.

Fourth, the views of administrators were fairly consistent across the two student groups. Apart from one skill (i.e., problem solving), we found no differences in the importance administrators placed on teaching self-determination to students with disabilities versus to the entire student body. Although the term self-determination is perhaps more widely used within the field of special education than in general education, administrators clearly recognized common needs in this domain across all of the students served in their schools. Similarly, school level did not appear to have a strong influence on ratings of skill importance. Only decision-making skills received higher ratings at the secondary versus elementary level. This finding is also consistent with prior studies involving paraprofessionals, special educators, and general educators (Carter et al., 2011 Carter et al., 2008; Lane et al., 2012; Stang et al., 2009). Although self-determination skills were considered important across the grade span, the ways in which these seven component skills would actually be addressed within instruction would likely differ as students get older. For example, goal setting for adolescents often focuses on identifying and working toward particular postschool outcomes, whereas young students typically learn to set goals on more proximal outcomes.

Fifth, administrators offered interesting insights into the extent to which their staff were likely to access various venues for professional development related to promoting self-determination. Not surprisingly, in- and after-school workshops were considered viable avenues for delivering resources, information, and training. However, these administrators also considered dissemination of short “good practice” guides as another promising way to share information about self-determination with educators. Such briefs could be readily developed by districts, professional organizations, technical assistance projects, or research groups. Administrators also suggested efforts to connect their staff with other educators within teacher collaboratives, learning circles, or mentoring relationships held promise as professional development pathways for sharing information about promoting student self-determination. Although additional research is needed to examine the efficacy and feasibility of these various training avenues, we were encouraged that administrators rated highly a number of alternatives to the widespread “sit-and-get” approach that characterizes most efforts to equip practitioners with research-based strategies.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Additional research is needed to address several limitations of this study. First, while administrators have an important vantage point from which to speak about the instructional emphases in their school, their views on where and how often self-determination instruction is provided to students likely does not emerge from direct observations of the full range of classes offered in their schools. Although these administrators can speak in informed ways about what happens in their buildings, future research incorporating direct observations of the ways in which educators actually address self-determination skills within their classrooms is sorely needed. The vast majority of research on self-determination instruction and intervention relies heavily on self-report data. Second, we sought to discern whether the views of administrators differed on the basis of the disability status of students. Although we randomly assigned principals to receive surveys referencing students in two different ways (i.e., students vs. students with disabilities), the former group (i.e., students) is not entirely distinct from the latter group (i.e., students with disabilities). If real differences in the views of administrators based on disability actually exist, they may have been muted by the manner in which we referenced these two groups. Additional research is needed to explore administrators’ perspectives more explicitly for students with disabilities, those who are typically developing, those who are at risk of learning and behavioral challenges, and those who are gifted. It may be administrators’ perspective vary as a function of the type of student served. Furthermore, these perceptions could vary according to the instructional context (e.g., fully inclusive or partially inclusive settings) or as a function of the role of the administrator (e.g., special education vs. general education administrators). We recommend future researchers pursue this line of inquiry. Third, our findings are limited to administrators working in schools within a single state. Although our sample was representative of all schools in Tennessee, it is possible the perspectives of administrators may be shaped by the extent to which a state places more explicit emphasis on self-determination within state standards or has offered widespread training on fostering self-determination. Future researchers should replicate this study in different regions of the country to explore the generalizability of these findings to other contexts.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, the modest finding from this study offer an important perspective on self-determination skills—that of school-site administrators. Given their role as instructional leaders with the challenge of addressing many educational policies and practices, such as how to best offer self-determination instruction within the school curriculum, their views are vital. Findings suggest these administrators—like general educators, special educators, and parents— place a high value on providing instruction on teaching choice-making, decision-making, goal-setting and attainment, problem-solving, self-advocacy and leadership skills, self-awareness and self-knowledge, and self-management and self-regulation. While results indicated administrators reported educators at their school taught these skills with moderate frequency, there was (a) substantial variability in the spectrum of classrooms and settings in which self-determination skill were addressed and (b) limited differences in the importance or frequency of instruction relative to the type of student referenced or the school level. We are hopeful clarifying the perceptions of all stakeholders may build a solid foundation for informing intervention efforts to increase and improve instruction in self-determination skills across the K-12 continuum.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Wendy Oakes for her contributions to this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Support for this research was provided by a grant from the Tennessee Department of Education to Vanderbilt University (CFDA No. 84.027A) and from the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH.

References

Carter

E. W.

Lane

K. L.

Cooney

Weir

Moss

C. K.

Machalicek

(2013). Parent assessments of self-determination importance and performance for students with autism or intellectual disability. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 188, 16–31. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

Carter

E. W.

Lane

K. L.

Crnobori

Bruhn

A. L.

Oakes

W. P.

(2011). Self-determination interventions for students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders: Mapping the knowledge base. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 100–116.

Carter

E. W.

Lane

K. L.

Pierson

M. R.

Stang

K. K.

(2008). Promoting self-determination for transition-age youth: Views of high school general and special educators. Exceptional Children, 75, 55–70.

Carter

E. W.

Lane

K. L.

Sisco

L. G.

(2011). Paraprofessional perspectives on promoting self-determination among elementary and secondary students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 1–10.

Carter

E. W.

Trainor

A. A.

Cakiroglu

Cole

Swedeen

Ditchman

Owens

(2009). Exploring school-business partnerships to expand career development and early work experiences for youth with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 145–159. doi:10.1177/0885728809344590

Carter

E. W.

Trainor

A. A.

Owens

Swedeen

Sun

(2010). Self-determination prospects of youth with high-incidence disabilities: Divergent perspectives and related factors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18, 67–81. doi:10.1177/1063426609332605

Cho

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Kingston

(2011). Elementary teachers’ knowledge and use of interventions and barriers to promoting self-determination. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 149–156. doi:10.1177/0022466910362588

Cobb

Lehmann

Newman-Gonchar

Alwell

(2009). Self-determination for students with disabilities: A narrative metasynthesis. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 108–114. doi:10.1177/0885728809336654

Council for Exceptional Children. (2009). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines (6th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.

10.

Dalgin

R. S.

Bellini

(2008). Invisible disability disclosure in an employment interview: Impact on employers’ hiring decisions and views of employability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 52, 6–15. doi:10.1177/0034355207311311

11.

Ennis

R. P.

Jolivette

(2012). Existing research and future directions for self-regulated strategy development with students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 46, 1–14. doi:10.1177/0022466912454682

12.

Field

S. S.

Martin

J. E.

Miller

R. J.

Ward

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(1998). Self-determination for persons with disabilities: A position statement of the division on career development and transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 113–128. doi:10.1177/088572889802100202

13.

Garet

M. S.

Porter

A. C.

Desimone

Birman

B. F.

Yoon

K. S.

(2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915

14.

Geenen

Powers

L. E.

Powers

Cunningham

McMahon

Nelson

. . .Fullerton

(2013). Experimental study of a self-determination intervention for youth in foster care. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 84–95.

15.

Harris

P. A.

Taylor

Thielke

Payne

Gonzalez

Conde

J. G.

(2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Information, 42, 377–381.

16.

Konrad

Fowler

C. H.

Walker

A. R.

Test

D. W.

Wood

(2007). Effects of self-determination interventions on the academic skills of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 89–113.

17.

Lane

K. L.

Carter

E. W.

Sisco

L. G.

(2012). Paraprofessional perspectives on promoting self-determination among elementary and secondary students with high-incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78, 237–251.

18.

Mason

Field

Sawilowsky

(2004). Implementing self-determination activities and student participation in IEPs. Exceptional Children, 70, 441–451.

19.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, DC: Author.

20.

Palmer

S. B.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Gipson

Agran

(2004). Promoting access to general curriculum by teaching self-determination skills. Exceptional Children, 70, 427–439.

21.

Penuel

W. R.

Fishman

B. J.

Yamaguchi

Gallagher

L. P.

(2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 921–958. doi:10.3102/0002831207308221

22.

Shellard

(2003). Defining the principalship. Principal, 82(4), 56–60.

23.

Shogren

K. A.

(2011). Culture and self-determination: A synthesis of the literature and directions for future research and practice. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 115–127. doi:10.1177/0885728811398271

24.

Shogren

K. A.

Faggella-Luby

M. N.

Bae

S. J.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2004). The effect of choice-making as an intervention for problem behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 228–237. doi:10.1177/10983007040060040401

25.

SRI International. (2005). Self-determination of youth with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

26.

Stang

K. K.

Carter

E. W.

Lane

K. L.

Pierson

M. R.

(2009). Perspectives of general and special educators on fostering self-determination in elementary and middle schools. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 94–106. doi:10.1177/0022466907313452

27.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

Brewer

D. M.

Wood

W. M.

(2005). A content and methodological review of self-advocacy intervention studies. Exceptional Children, 72, 101–125.

28.

Thoma

C. A.

Nathanson

Baker

S. R.

Tamura

(2002). Self-determination: What do special educators know and where do they learn it? Remedial and Special Education, 23, 242–247. doi:10.1177/07419325020230040701

29.

Thoma

C. A.

Pannozzo

G. M.

Fritton

S. C.

Bartholomew

C. C.

(2008). A qualitative study of preservice teachers’ understanding of self-determination for students with significant disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 94–105. doi:10.1177/0885728808317444

30.

Wakeman

S. Y.

Browder

D. M.

Flowers

Ahlgrim-Delzell

(2006, June). Principals’ knowledge of fundamental and current issues in special education. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 153–174. doi:10.1177/0192636506288858

31.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2011). Assessment and intervention in self-determination. In Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities Vol. 24 (pp. 213–249). London, UK: Emerald Publishing Ltd.

32.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Agran

Hughes

(2000). A national survey of teachers’ promotion of self-determination and student-directed learning. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 58–68. doi:10.1177/002246690003400201

33.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Field

(2007). Instructional and assessment strategies to promote the self-determination of students with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

34.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Shogren

Williams-Diehm

Soukup

J. H.

(2013). Establishing a causal relationship between intervention to promote self-determination and enhanced student self-determination. The Journal of Special Education, 46, 195–210. doi:10.1177/0022466910392377

35.

Wolman

J. M.

Campeau

P. L.

DuBois

P. A.

Mithaug

D. E.

Stolarski

V. S.

(1994). AIR self-determination scale and user guide. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.

36.

Zhang

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Chen

(2005). Parent and teacher engagement in fostering the self-determination of students with disabilities: A comparison between the United States and the Republic of China. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 55–64. doi:10.1177/07419325050260010701